"Can we have an “Alternate History” Board?" Topic

I would support it.

After Waterloo, the French win.
Lee wins at Gettysburg.
John Wilkes Booth misses.
Caesar stays home.
The Beatles bomb on Ed Sullivan.
LBJ listens to reason.

This might be quite entertaining.

I like it.

Yes, lots of potentially interesting discussions, I'd vote for it.

But please no British troops at Gettysburg.

Actually we don't need it. Counterfactual, alternative history is discussed often in it's appropriate board. Why dilute the conversation? I fear that some members who have something to add to the conversation will miss it. So to answer the OP's question, no we can't have an alternative history board. Next question.

What OC said.

Tho we already have a 18th Century ImagiNations board, and, a bit further removed from actual history, a VSF one.

Yes, I would support this board, as well. There can be some interesting scenarios and games affiliated.

Nixon shaves…

I would not support this board.

I vote yes! OC, it would be good to get them all in one place.

I think I'd pass on this one. If the event is close enough to actual history--Napoleon wins the toss and elects to receive in 1815--historical boards cover it. If it's far enough back to create a new world--Piper's Aryan Transpacific Sector--SF is probably where it belongs--or wherever the tech level takes it.

Hard enough now to find an old thread you sorta remember, and every additional board makes it worse.

Don't we have one?

Gemini says we don't have one, and then I spent two minute verifying that is true.

Obviously I'm in favor, but if we had one we'd have two tough questions to address.

I've got an alternate Midway scenario where the US doesn't find the Japanese fleet ahead of the invasion. Does that belong in Alternate History with all the ACW and Napoleonic stuff? Or on the WW2 Naval board? Or both? Probably crosspost to both, but then what's the point of the Alternate History board? If you are subscribed to the WW2 Naval board you would see it if I posted it there. If you aren't subscribed to WW2 Naval maybe you don't care when you see that scenario pop up on the Alternate History board. Is the point just to keep the historical boards clear of speculative stuff? Are we going to police that?

Second question, what is alternate history? Every game is alternate history, because you immediately start making moves that the historical general didn't make, and the historically successful side might lose, right? So how much do you have to change history before you have to post to Alt Hist? Napoleon or Hitler decide not to invade Russia, that's Alternate History. Adding a few units or moving the date of a battle one day in either direction to change some conditions, is that Alternat History? Rolling for weather?

Bonus question: what about a scenario where Gandalf and Boromir decide to try to use the One Ring to defeat Sauron? Or Saruman doesn't change sides? Is that alternate history?

Obviously, OBVIOUSLY we want to discuss alternate history here. The question is whether it's worth having those discussions on a separate board so they'll be grouped together across topics. I'm not sure that accomplishes anything.

But of course I'm going to vote for it anyway.

I'm pretty sure Bill can rig this contraption so every post gets its own board, which does seem to be the preferred outcome. But I think the first step to actually finding anything would be getting rid of half the boards we already have.

Yes, and it needs to include the time travel Connecticut Yankee scenarios where soldiers or inventers move to a new era and change things.

I read last year a rather good novel about a squad of modern infantry and their APC transported to the stone age. Obviously the fuel and ammo they have on hand is all they will EVER have.

How many transplanted Roman legions have we seen across the literary landscape?

These sort of games have some common elements and common problems that are independent of the specific historical period(s) involved. Which a new board can address.

You know, doc. I'd back a board restricted to *just* such stories--163? Lost Regiment, Destroyermen, Pournelle's Jannisaries books, Turtledove's ANV armed with AK's on down the list--EVERY BLASTED BOOK in which someone wants to machine-gun down a medieval army or strafe a horse & musket one. The problem is that only about half of them are alternate history so blocking an alternate history board wouldn't stifle them for me.

I'm sorry. I know it can be done decently, at least in literature. I even own a few examples. But gleeful Army helicopter pilots itching to gun down Pickett's Division because it was so much easier than learning how tech drives tactics has left me permanently twitchy on the subject. Another disability I don't get pension money for.

But if you imagine your fellow gamers are any less fascinated by the opportunity to blow away primitives with their improved Maxim guns instead of understanding tech and tactics, you don't know them very well.

Hey Robert, I have read every one of those series. Loved them.

Unnecessary.

Besides, what are you gaming that is alternative history? Most likely it's a known battle or war… in which case the relevant historical board addresses the topic, and the topic will be easier to find there. On the instance of "Roman Empire vs China" then any Roman or Ancient Chinese board will still cover it just fine.

Or, if one is wanting to imagine time travel or Lost World mash-ups, we already have those as well, in the SF or Fantasy forums.

So while I might be interested in such tabletop battles, I wouldn't be likely to support a specific board for something essentially covered elsewhere in multiple ways.

…alternate Midway scenario…

It belongs in the "WWII in the Pacific" board.

Such scenarios as Ewell attacks Culp's Hill on the 1st day or Napoleon gets that lost Corps at Ligny or Howe attacks the Continentals at Brooklyn Heights or Howe moves on Albany instead of Philadelphia, or Hitler doesn't stop the panzers at Dunkerque or one of the American Battleships is left behind to cover Taffy 3 can and has been posted in the appropriate scenario or discussion board.

All of these subjects are from multiple periods and you want to put these unrelated topics in one board? That is a lot of possible subjects you would find on any scenario or discussion board. Why would you take that away?

What are we talking about?

Are we talking about plausible scenarios for a game or are we talking about alternative history genre that there are books? I think we have two conversations going on.

The popular genre of alternative universes' where for example the Confederates get armed with AK47s just in time for Gettysburg. That is science fiction and should be on those boards like Weird WWII. We need to define what we are talking about.

Other boards I can't believe we don't have:

Post-apocalyptic settings
80's action cartoon settings
Dollar Store Finds
3D Sculpting or STL file design
Solo Wargaming
Old West/Wild West
Pike & Shot (is renaissance enough?)
Mythology
Gangsters
Skirmish Games

We do have a post-apocalyptic board.

TMP link

And an Old West one:

TMP link

… and probably more of those, I can't be arsed to go looking.

And Grattan54 makes my point.

Hmm. And I think I have a solution: Create an "Anachronisitic Conflicts" board for everyone whose idea of a fun afternoon is running down Roman Legonaires while driving a Pzkw IV. Doesn't matter how the author arrived at it. This covers everything not easily covered by fantasy, SF or historical boards. Grattan can find it all in one place, and I can turn it off. "Napoleon gives clear, realistic orders in 1815" will remain on the Napoloenics board where it belongs, alternate history or no.

John
You posted this on the wrong board. It should be on TMP Talk:
"TMP Talk – For discussion of community issues involving the website, including requests for new Message Boards, and just saying "hi" to Bill Armintrout (the Editor)."

Oh, joy, joy, joy, more board bloat. There are so many boards now that the OP couldn't figure out where this was supposed to be posted.

I vote NO.

John
You posted this on the wrong board. It should be on TMP Talk

No. I posted deliberately on Polls, so I actually did figure out where I wanted it. 😄
I want it to be voted on.
Usually it takes 30 "pro" votes, versus a democratic outcome. That's deliberate.

One thing I've observed here in the past is that a "new board" results in more topics along that line.

And, yes! We can crosspost to our hearts content.